MindStalker:PanicMan: I play games when I DONT want to interact with people. I don't want facebook integration. Or leaderboards. Or resource sharing. I want to be THE hero of the world, not just another guy who clearly isn't the best at whatever.

The only thing online integration does is make my experience less meaningful. It adds an element of competition where it doesn't belong. That's not fun. Games are supposed to be fun.

Dr. Goldshnoz:Teiritzamna: CPennypacker: As a publisher they should be less concerned with what people have a right to do and more concerned with satisfying their paying customers and not pissing them off.

This is true. It is also irrelevant to my statements were were focused upon the non corporate response side of this standard dance. Of course i believe companies should be smarter with their resources and should always focus on making a better product rather than market manipulation. However, that is a totally different question. Not corporate action, but consumer action.

When confronted by a company that hasn't learned the lesson that it should make a better product, as stated above a consumer has three options. (1) buy anyway (valid) (2) not buy (valid) (3) obtain but do not buy (invalid). All i was saying is that it remarkable how many people do not seem to realize that (2) is an option, which allows them to use the poor acts of the company as a justification for (3)

It's slightly cute that you're implying that your whole vote with your wallet and just not buy premise actually makes an impactl. It doesn't. You know it. I know it. EA knows it. A handful of people with the sense to know how bad they are getting screwed around with "just not buy the game" doesn't affect someone like EA. Compared to the ignorant masses that will deal with it because it is what there is, those that accept that they HAVE to endure getting biatchsmacked to have a product, it's a literal drop in the bucket. The same premise works in any industry. I can't make a difference by just not buying a new car because the annoying seatbelt alarm screams at me the second my ass hits the seat. I can't make a difference by just not buying a cell phone and cell service because I know that having sponsored apps and bandwidth caps is BS.

It's not about having an impact. It's about understanding that we are not entitled to the product of others. If you don't like a game or the DRM involved, that's fine. Just don't buy it. That is well within your rights. What you do not have the right to do (the royal "you," not you you), however, is play the game anyway without paying for it and then justify your illicit behavior as somehow being the fault of the company whose product you are enjoying.

So I know a lot of people felt burned by ME3, and I hated the ending just as much as anyone (more numb to it now), but the "Citadel" DLC is awesome. It's nothing but pure fanservice, and that's what makes it great. It's the ending that people wanted, but at the same time there's no way they could've put it in the main game. This is DLC done right.

I was soooooo excited for ME3. And I figured I'd give Origin a shot because I like a free market and competition is essential to the free market. Then I got EA'd.

I had bought the game, but they also offered DLC for sale on farking LAUNCH DAY. Not only that, but the DLC was content that absolutely should have been part of the main game. On top of that - despite having stated numerous time before that you wouldn't have to - you had to play the multiplayer they had tacked on in order to unlock all the possible conclusions to the game.... which was the SECOND launch day crass cash grab - being that multiplayer had a whole other system for you to pay even more money for in-game content that they were trying to force you to participate in.

So yeah... that was the first and last time I buy a game through Origin. I'm also happy to avoid EA games in general when I can.

Steam for the motherfarkin' win.

The Prothean Day-One DLC was bullshiat I'll definitely say. But BioWare did listen and lowered the required readiness rating for the best ending from 4200 (which did need multiplayer to achieve) down to 3100, meaning you could get it without prior DLCs or multiplayer. Of course for some, that was too little, too late.

I got Citadel because it promised an actual goodbye, and in that aspect BioWare did deliver. Not just to the ME3 cast, but they brought back almost every voice actor from the other two games also. It felt like a worthy goodbye for the entire series, not just ME3.

rufus-t-firefly:No thank you. To any of this. This is, without a doubt, the last PC game I buy. Steam, Origin, whatever non-sense BattleNet decides to use... No more. Not when there are three consoles sitting in front of me, eager to play games immediately, the first time. In fact, my new Mass Effect 3 DLC just installed. Quickly. The first time.

What? So EA doing a crappy launch of SimCity and having lots of DLC (in all likelihood) to nickle and dime you, causes him to abandon the PC as a gaming platform and instead spend money on DLC from an EA product on a console instead? I bet they are shaking in their boots at his decision to spend his money on a different one of their products due to how crappy their service is.

lucksi:A botched launch gets more greens than a school shooting and the gun threads or a cop killer hunt.

Yeah, and the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" has as big a media cycle as 9/11. (I read that in a book somewhere...)

There are several reasons why this story is blowing up the internets. First, this story is about more than just one game, it's about the state of the industry. SimCity is an institution, and you've heard of it even if you've never played it. Most gamers knew about the launch, and they also knew about the always-on internet connection. That's a divisive topic already, as is any intrusive DRM, and SimCity was the perfect test-case for whether it is acceptable for a single-player game to have an always-on DRM. Yes, there was the same issue with Diablo 3, but the real-money auction house and more online-centered nature of the game made always-on internet more understandable. This, however was different. This was SimCity.

SimCity has always been a solitary affair. Those of us who grew up playing these games tended to play them single-player. Yes, some had multi-player options, but those were options. We mainly wanted to play with our toy in our own sandbox. Now, suddenly, we are told that we can't do that. That this game MUST be online and you MUST utilize multiplayer to really experience it. That it's not even a complete game and we'll probably pay more for DLC that gives us things that were already included in previous versions. We look at this and wonder what this means for every other game. If this happens to SimCity, will this happen to every single-player game? Is the current paradigm of being able to play games solely on our own consoles or systems over?

SimCity is a test case for that new reality, and its very public failure is a prime example of why it's a bad idea to make always-on internet DRM a component of single-player games. It's also a rallying cry for people to vote with their wallets and NOT buy games that do this. This could be a tipping point in the video game industry, and how we react will determine the future of gaming. Which is why I refuse to buy this game and give my money to Humble Bundle, GOG, and Steam (provided the game can be played in offline mode.)

There's another reason this is such a huge story. Just as the Janet Jackson "outrage" gave us relief from 9/11, anthrax, and the botched invasion of Iraq (not to mention the fact that George W. Bush was President), this story is giving us welcome relief from school-shootings, lethal super-storms, and the sequester. We need this. Just like gaming can be a catharsis for real world stress, bad news in the gaming world is a catharsis for bad news in the real world.

HeartBurnKid:The fact that you can have that conversation is proof that DRM does not work and is, in fact, completely and utterly pointless.

Short answer: Um . . . so? What does that have to do with what I was discussing?

long answer: Like most things involving stopping people from obtaining products unlawfully, there is an arms race. At some point, the cost of securing the product exceeds the costs of it being obtained illegally. That would be the reasonable stopping point. I dont know of any security measure, electronic or real world based, that prevents anyone from obtaining property unlawfully, if that intended tortfeasor really wants to obtain it unlawfully. However, to say that therefore all security "does not work and is, in fact, completely and utterly pointless" seems to be overly broad.

We could of course have the more reasonable discussion about cost/benefit. Here, it seems, EA's attempted security was woefully more expensive than the harms it would prevent. Indeed, the phenomenon i was attempting to discuss above likely means that their security actually encouraged more unlawful acts.

So i would be quite happy to say that in this instance EA's poorly implemented DRM "does not work and is, in fact, completely and utterly pointless"

jjmartin:The real reason iTunes 'won' is that they made paying for the music easier than stealing it. Until gaming companies figure that out this'll happen again.

A very smart guy named Gabe Newell has figured this out long ago.

Note that EA is one of only three significant companies (the others being the Minecraft guy (yeah, Notch is as important as EA, IMHO) and the Blizzard half of Activision Blizzard) not to use his service.

Rincewind53:Great Janitor: How bad is the video game industry doing? I have friends who work at the Gamestop Corporate office. Years ago, Gamestop used to be on the Fortune 500. Gamestop had piles of money and they used it to do upgrade sections of the corporate office, they bought some off site property to expand their refurbishment department, picked up several companies to expand their brand. Now, in late January they eliminated several positions in the corporate office as well as closed over 80 stores, dissolving several districts. Right now is annual review time and so far everyone who's gotten their review back has had poor reviews. Some think that the company might be gearing up for another round of lay offs, others think the poor reviews are Gamestop's way of avoiding payraises that they've already announced that they can not afford. Part of the problem is that it's been six years since a major console was released and with the next gen consoles not expected to be out until Maybe December of this year, it's going to be a hard year for Gamestop. Another problem for Gamestop is the software company's war against used gaming, and Gamestop is their target (and gamers the victims). They argue that Gamestop has made a billion dollar empire off of used games, but gives none of that money to the software companies (which makes as much sense as Carmax selling used cars but not sending any of that money to the auto makers). There are several rumors about the next Playstation and Xbox not allowing used games by requiring online connection to verify that the disk is a new disk, to activation codes to on line only. All moves that will ultimately kill the video game industry, at least the console gaming industry.

Gamestop is dying because of digital distribution, Amazon, and the general price point for new video games. End of story.

Gamestop's fate has very little to do with the do with the health of the video game industry as a whole.

I'm not a fan of Gamestop, but they make smart busniess moves. They're actually a Fortune 300 company now, with no debt, which is very rare for a retailer, especially one looking down the barrel of a 7-year console life-cylce. As long as they keep adding new business initiatives that make sense for them (high-end headsets, used ipods/ipads, tablets, buying Impulse and Kongregate). They aren't going anywhere, but just adapting to the market. Closing stores was inevitable since the EB merger there's no sense in having one on every block, but why close them all immediately if they're still profitable? Wait until the leases are up and it will cost a lot less.

Because EA's the hero Gamers deserve, but not the one it needs right now. So, we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Dark Knight.

Didn't buy Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, nor Sim City. First two because of the stupid Battlenet online verification crap and having to log in just to play the single player campaign. Sim City seems to be suffering from that problem so won't be buying it either.

Dr. Goldshnoz:Because EA's the hero Gamers deserve, but not the one it needs right now. So, we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Dark Knight.

+1 for the fact that the Dark Knight soundtrack came on to the song that plays during that speech when i read that.

PsyLord:Didn't buy Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, nor Sim City. First two because of the stupid Battlenet online verification crap and having to log in just to play the single player campaign. Sim City seems to be suffering from that problem so won't be buying it either.

SC2 only needed online verification to activate the game. You can still play the single player campaign offline as I did many times while underway on my ship while I was still in the Navy, you just wont get the achievements. I'm still angry with the inability to LAN with SC2 though.

I'm sorry, but anyone who bought this game on launch day or this week knew what they were getting themselves into. Anyone who really thought EA would have stuff in place is delusional.

I'm not arguing what they're doing is OK at all, I'm just saying everyone who bought this on launch is a masochist. Same goes for people who complain about upcoming DLC when you know damn well you're going to buy it.

HST's Dead Carcass:CPennypacker: Or, more likely, they would just cancel whatever series sold bad due to gamers not buying it, lay off the staff and close the studio. Its not so black and white. The DRM sucks, and is added into the value equation for the game. For some people, the game is still a net positive value, discounting the negative aspects like DRM and the cost combined. That doesn't mean they don't have a right to complain about the stuff they don't like.

The thing is, its a very strong negative and will tip the value proposition for a lot of potential buyers. It did for me. I would have bought this game. Maybe when the price drops, but this debacle at $60 isn't worth it, even for a new Sim City.

There are no new games in development. None. Every game is either a sequel, prequel or a straight rip off of another already established game. They keep making them because we keep buying them.

I wholeheartedly agree SimCity 2013 is not worth $60. I played the Beta and realized this was not a game I would buy at full price. The last game I bought at full price was Civ5. It was worth every penny. I also bought all the DLC's at full price. I am as much to blame as anyone else for the DLC's being a viable outlet for revenue when it should have been added to the game initially. I felt the game warranted the output of cash.

Nearly every other game I've bought in the last 3 years has been during a Steam sale. The only other games I bought at full price was Duke Nuke 'Em Forever and Homefront. I say this to simply prove: we as gamers are the problem. Neither DNF nor Homefront were worth their price for the game. They were short, they were nothing more than a new skin on an established genre, and as usual with FPS games, they direct attention away from the extremely short stories to laud the 'rich PVP environments'.

I'm torn now. Bioshock Infinite will be released soon. I was upset at how short of a game Bioshock 2 was, I finished it in one day on a weekend. Will this g ...

I felt that way about Dead Space 2. There was no need for a multiplayer PvP option; there just wasn't. It's not an FPS and it doesn't play like one.

It's the fault of gamers for continuing to want to play games even when they get dicked by game publishers that have bought up most of the decent IP that has existed and milks it dry?

k.

Yes. Who cares how shiny the polished turd is? After DA2, ME2, and C&C4 there should have been no EA titles ever bought again. Lord knows they will never get another cent from me. There are other distributors who put out quality games. Give them your gaming dollars and let EA die the death it deserves for raping every damn franchise they get their claws on.

you have pee hands:Shrugging Atlas: I learned my lesson with Diablo 3. Never farking again.

I thought people had that problem more with Diablo 2 and World of Warcraft.

Couldn't say because oddly enough I never played either. But D3 had all sorts of issues at launch first with just being able to get into the game at all, then with the auction house for weeks afterwards. It sounds like Sim City has been worse though just from what I've been reading on Fark.

The sad thing is prior to hearing about the DRM 'solution' I had planned on buying this on day one without having even researched the game. I've played every previous version, and it wasn't something I even considered skipping or thinking twice about. But that was such a deal breaker I wouldn't have even regretted it had the launch gone well.

soporific: Yes, there was the same issue with Diablo 3, but the real-money auction house and more online-centered nature of the game made always-on internet more understandable. This, however was different. This was SimCity.

Nicely stated. Basically, that's where I stand on Diablo 3 (and StarCraft 2) and this Sim City debacle. I was largely OK with the "always-on" requirement for Diablo and StarCraft, since I'd more or less always played Diablo/StarCraft/WarCraft online. Sure, I'd play through the campaigns single-player, but there was always a multiplayer component (LAN parties, dialing in to my friend's modem to beat up a computer opponent, etc.).

HST's Dead Carcass:CPennypacker: Or, more likely, they would just cancel whatever series sold bad due to gamers not buying it, lay off the staff and close the studio. Its not so black and white. The DRM sucks, and is added into the value equation for the game. For some people, the game is still a net positive value, discounting the negative aspects like DRM and the cost combined. That doesn't mean they don't have a right to complain about the stuff they don't like.

The thing is, its a very strong negative and will tip the value proposition for a lot of potential buyers. It did for me. I would have bought this game. Maybe when the price drops, but this debacle at $60 isn't worth it, even for a new Sim City.

There are no new games in development. None. Every game is either a sequel, prequel or a straight rip off of another already established game. They keep making them because we keep buying them.

I wholeheartedly agree SimCity 2013 is not worth $60. I played the Beta and realized this was not a game I would buy at full price. The last game I bought at full price was Civ5. It was worth every penny. I also bought all the DLC's at full price. I am as much to blame as anyone else for the DLC's being a viable outlet for revenue when it should have been added to the game initially. I felt the game warranted the output of cash.

Nearly every other game I've bought in the last 3 years has been during a Steam sale. The only other games I bought at full price was Duke Nuke 'Em Forever and Homefront. I say this to simply prove: we as gamers are the problem. Neither DNF nor Homefront were worth their price for the game. They were short, they were nothing more than a new skin on an established genre, and as usual with FPS games, they direct attention away from the extremely short stories to laud the 'rich PVP environments'.

I'm torn now. Bioshock Infinite will be released soon. I was upset at how short of a game Bioshock 2 was, I finished it in one day on a weekend. Will this g ...

I no longer consider paying more than about $10 for an FPS, the only reason to buy before they are down to that point is to play it multiplayer before the bulk of people have moved on to the next version/competitor, and that has never really attracted me in most cases anyway outside of a LAN environment where you know your opponents. Paying that little you can't really be let down by how short the single player is. About the only games I would pay a lot more for are the sort of grand strategy/economic sim games because I can seen myself playing those regularly for years to come (and sometimes in massive amounts). Obviously Sim City is now off the list as the servers will be deconstructed long before I would have stopped playing the game (unless it sucks in terms of gameplay as well).

rugman11:Dr. Goldshnoz: Teiritzamna: CPennypacker: As a publisher they should be less concerned with what people have a right to do and more concerned with satisfying their paying customers and not pissing them off.

This is true. It is also irrelevant to my statements were were focused upon the non corporate response side of this standard dance. Of course i believe companies should be smarter with their resources and should always focus on making a better product rather than market manipulation. However, that is a totally different question. Not corporate action, but consumer action.

When confronted by a company that hasn't learned the lesson that it should make a better product, as stated above a consumer has three options. (1) buy anyway (valid) (2) not buy (valid) (3) obtain but do not buy (invalid). All i was saying is that it remarkable how many people do not seem to realize that (2) is an option, which allows them to use the poor acts of the company as a justification for (3)

It's slightly cute that you're implying that your whole vote with your wallet and just not buy premise actually makes an impactl. It doesn't. You know it. I know it. EA knows it. A handful of people with the sense to know how bad they are getting screwed around with "just not buy the game" doesn't affect someone like EA. Compared to the ignorant masses that will deal with it because it is what there is, those that accept that they HAVE to endure getting biatchsmacked to have a product, it's a literal drop in the bucket. The same premise works in any industry. I can't make a difference by just not buying a new car because the annoying seatbelt alarm screams at me the second my ass hits the seat. I can't make a difference by just not buying a cell phone and cell service because I know that having sponsored apps and bandwidth caps is BS.

It's not about having an impact. It's about understanding that we are not entitled to the product of others. If you don't like a game or the DRM involved ...

Justify? I don't justify anything when I pirate. I know I'm not entitled to it, and I know I'm going to do it anyway because it's easy and I know I won't get caught. It's quicker and easier to pirate than to buy and pirates actually get a better product free of all the advertisements and garbage publishers tack on. Given the fact that there will always be people like me who for whom ethics are not a sufficient deterrent, what's a gaming company to do? Well, maybe making it not be a pain in the ass to purchase and install would be a good start.

JesusJuice:rugman11: Dr. Goldshnoz: Teiritzamna: CPennypacker: As a publisher they should be less concerned with what people have a right to do and more concerned with satisfying their paying customers and not pissing them off.

This is true. It is also irrelevant to my statements were were focused upon the non corporate response side of this standard dance. Of course i believe companies should be smarter with their resources and should always focus on making a better product rather than market manipulation. However, that is a totally different question. Not corporate action, but consumer action.

When confronted by a company that hasn't learned the lesson that it should make a better product, as stated above a consumer has three options. (1) buy anyway (valid) (2) not buy (valid) (3) obtain but do not buy (invalid). All i was saying is that it remarkable how many people do not seem to realize that (2) is an option, which allows them to use the poor acts of the company as a justification for (3)

It's slightly cute that you're implying that your whole vote with your wallet and just not buy premise actually makes an impactl. It doesn't. You know it. I know it. EA knows it. A handful of people with the sense to know how bad they are getting screwed around with "just not buy the game" doesn't affect someone like EA. Compared to the ignorant masses that will deal with it because it is what there is, those that accept that they HAVE to endure getting biatchsmacked to have a product, it's a literal drop in the bucket. The same premise works in any industry. I can't make a difference by just not buying a new car because the annoying seatbelt alarm screams at me the second my ass hits the seat. I can't make a difference by just not buying a cell phone and cell service because I know that having sponsored apps and bandwidth caps is BS.

It's not about having an impact. It's about understanding that we are not entitled to the product of others. If you don't like a game or the DR ...

lousyskater:Pixiest: Geez, that always connected DRM stuff really blows. I guess I'll just stick with World of Warcraft.

That's not a very good comparison. The whole point of an MMO is to play with other people, where SimCity has mostly been a single player game. Also, Blizzard at least refunded game time back in the early years of WoW when the servers were still fairly unstable and unplayable for days at a time. EA's strategy is "Too bad, we already have your money. Now GTFO"

/always online single player games are terrible and should have never come to pass//I'm looking at you D3

scottydoesntknow:The Prothean Day-One DLC was bullshiat I'll definitely say. But BioWare did listen and lowered the required readiness rating for the best ending from 4200 (which did need multiplayer to achieve) down to 3100, meaning you could get it without prior DLCs or multiplayer. Of course for some, that was too little, too late.

I got Citadel because it promised an actual goodbye, and in that aspect BioWare did deliver. Not just to the ME3 cast, but they brought back almost every voice actor from the other two games also. It felt like a worthy goodbye for the entire series, not just ME3.

Oh yeah, IIRC I was already finished with the game when they lowered the readiness rating requirement. So yeah, too little too late.

There was nothing wrong with them tacking multiplayer on to Mass Effect.... what irked me was the backhanded way they were pushing people in to it who - like me - were only interested in the single-player. It was a dirty, greedy way to get more money out of us. So there I was, at the point of no return in the game, counting the minutes until I could quit playing the multiplayer I didn't want to play so I could continue the single player that I did.

ME1 and ME2 I played through multiple times. ME3 I played through once, then loaded up an old save to play the ending again when they fleshed it out more. That's all... So I actually had no idea they had even released a new DLC until it was mentioned in this thread and I just googled it.

Now I'm torn. I'm super-completionist, so I would like to play through the DLC and being that it sounds like they did a good job on it. But after they hosed me so much on ME3 originally I also don't want to give them any more money for it. I feel like I already paid them for DLC with the day 1 DLC, and it really didn't sit well with me. As time went on the audacity of it pissed me off more and more. So I'm actually tempted to pirate the game and new DLC now, copy my saves over from the legit copy I bought, and check out the DLC.

We'll see. I may just pass on it on principle. Maybe I can check it out on Youtube or something.

JesusJuice:Justify? I don't justify anything when I pirate. I know I'm not entitled to it, and I know I'm going to do it anyway because it's easy and I know I won't get caught. It's quicker and easier to pirate than to buy and pirates actually get a better product free of all the advertisements and garbage publishers tack on. Given the fact that there will always be people like me who for whom ethics are not a sufficient deterrent, what's a gaming company to do? Well, maybe making it not be a pain in the ass to purchase and install would be a good start.

I'm in this boat...for the most part. It's been ages since I've pirated any game, save for games that aren't ever coming to PC but have emulators for, or games that never got released in North America. But this sudden stop wasn't because it's wrong, or I'm afraid of getting caught, it's because I use STEAM, Amazon, GoG, and Indie bundle places (Humble Bundle, Indie Royal, Indie Gala a couple of times). Between their sales and ease of getting the games to play, it actually became a bigger pain in the ass to pirate the games I wanted to play.

EA gets every negative consequence they deserve. They've shown time and time again that they don't want to adopt any business practice of making the act of playing their games easy. It's always some bullshiat tacked on that sours the experience. My regret is that even this circus of a launch isn't going to be enough to really hurt them.

scottydoesntknow:Pixiest: Geez, that always connected DRM stuff really blows. I guess I'll just stick with World of Warcraft.

LOLWUT? You're comparing a Massive Multiplayer-Online (bolded for emphasis) game, to a game that has been single-player since it's inception and had multiplayer elements/DRM shoehorned into it.

Actually, I was laughing at myself because that was the actual thought that went through my head. While it's not a perfect comparison for the reasons you point out, it's still basically the same thing. When the WoW servers eventually go down, my beautiful little Undead, with whom I've spent so much time, will be gone.

Pixiest:scottydoesntknow: Pixiest: Geez, that always connected DRM stuff really blows. I guess I'll just stick with World of Warcraft.

LOLWUT? You're comparing a Massive Multiplayer-Online (bolded for emphasis) game, to a game that has been single-player since it's inception and had multiplayer elements/DRM shoehorned into it.

Actually, I was laughing at myself because that was the actual thought that went through my head. While it's not a perfect comparison for the reasons you point out, it's still basically the same thing. When the WoW servers eventually go down, my beautiful little Undead, with whom I've spent so much time, will be gone.

Ehh Blizzard still maintains original Starcraft/Diablo II servers. If it was EA, then yea I would be worried, but I'd say you've got enough years to actually tire out of the game before they shut 'em down.

Teiritzamna:We could of course have the more reasonable discussion about cost/benefit. Here, it seems, EA's attempted security was woefully more expensive than the harms it would prevent. Indeed, the phenomenon i was attempting to discuss above likely means that their security actually encouraged more unlawful acts.

So i would be quite happy to say that in this instance EA's poorly implemented DRM "does not work and is, in fact, completely and utterly pointless"

...is it much of a leap then to say that many games with "always-on" DRM are as poorly implemented? Some here are extending this sentiment to all games with "always-online" DRM are poorly implemented, though I cannot personally throw my hat in with this crowd (due to ignorancy).

My own person experience certainly suggests it, however (can't express the frustration of one of my available times to play Diablo 3 is during their weekly server maintenance for a game I always play solo). If I knew of a pirated version of Diablo 3 that let me play solo, I'd have been all over it (even after legitimately purchasing it).

The real problem with this, is that if you look forward by evaluating another industry that's a little ahead in the DRM battle (ie, the movie industry) you will see that the motivation (not justification) for piracy is often the limitations placed on owned software by the DRM itself, which is the sole reason people are so outraged by it. If DRM can be put in that has NO impact on legitimate owners, then it'd be accepted without hesitation. But, it never seems to be able to be, as in this case (ie, servers are greatly struggling preventing solo-play).

[Cool-story bro Begins]

Another example of this is I had recently finally upgraded to a big 1080p TV and wanted to start purchasing blu-ray version of movies and add them to my digital DVD collection I have on my media server in my house. The point of the media server is obvious: I have several devices that I like to watch movies on (ie, Kindle Fire, laptops, PS3, etc) in various areas of my house. In my mind, this is justifiable "fair-use" of my purchases--no one can illegally get the movies from me, and I am always only viewing one at a time in my house, and they were purchased.

However, to my disappointment, I discovered that the blu-ray movies now have watermarks in their audio such that DRM in my WiFi-enabled blu-ray players (including the PS3) will halt play-back after 20 minutes if detected, thus limiting my ability to play the movie how I want to play it.

But wait--I discovered that there exist blu-ray rips of said movies that have this water-mark removed (got the audio from a DVD source, or something, not sure how they do it). Alternatively, I can "jailbreak" my devices and remove the DRM on the device (which is also illegal). So, even though I WANT to legitimately purchase the movie, I have incentive to pirate it instead, ironically because of the DRM in place attempting to prevent me from pirating it in the first place!

So, here in-lies the actual dilemma I am now faced with: do I go purchase the blu-ray disk and live with the fact that I can no longer add them to my media server library, or do I just pirate them (for free) and have a (from my perspective) better experience with the product? Is it still "immoral" if I first purchase the movie, but then download a pirated copy that does what I actually want it to do?

/it's not only a question of morals, but also the fact there are incentives to "pirate" software

I thought people had that problem more with Diablo 2 and World of Warcraft.

Couldn't say because oddly enough I never played either. But D3 had all sorts of issues at launch first with just being able to get into the game at all, then with the auction house for weeks afterwards. It sounds like Sim City has been worse though just from what I've been reading on Fark.

The sad thing is prior to hearing about the DRM 'solution' I had planned on buying this on day one without having even researched the game. I've played every previous version, and it wasn't something I even considered skipping or thinking twice about. But that was such a deal breaker I wouldn't have even regretted it had the launch gone well.

FarkGrudge:Teiritzamna: We could of course have the more reasonable discussion about cost/benefit. Here, it seems, EA's attempted security was woefully more expensive than the harms it would prevent. Indeed, the phenomenon i was attempting to discuss above likely means that their security actually encouraged more unlawful acts.

So i would be quite happy to say that in this instance EA's poorly implemented DRM "does not work and is, in fact, completely and utterly pointless"

...is it much of a leap then to say that many games with "always-on" DRM are as poorly implemented? Some here are extending this sentiment to all games with "always-online" DRM are poorly implemented, though I cannot personally throw my hat in with this crowd (due to ignorancy).

My own person experience certainly suggests it, however (can't express the frustration of one of my available times to play Diablo 3 is during their weekly server maintenance for a game I always play solo). If I knew of a pirated version of Diablo 3 that let me play solo, I'd have been all over it (even after legitimately purchasing it).

The real problem with this, is that if you look forward by evaluating another industry that's a little ahead in the DRM battle (ie, the movie industry) you will see that the motivation (not justification) for piracy is often the limitations placed on owned software by the DRM itself, which is the sole reason people are so outraged by it. If DRM can be put in that has NO impact on legitimate owners, then it'd be accepted without hesitation. But, it never seems to be able to be, as in this case (ie, servers are greatly struggling preventing solo-play).

[Cool-story bro Begins]

Another example of this is I had recently finally upgraded to a big 1080p TV and wanted to start purchasing blu-ray version of movies and add them to my digital DVD collection I have on my media server in my house. The point of the media server is obvious: I have several devices that I like to watch movies on (ie, ...

The trolls would argue that when you buy the movie, you're purchasing a license to watch the movie in a way approved by the distributor, that you have no rights to change your viewing experience beyond the original permissions.

And legally, these trolls are correct. But ethically? the trolls are in the wrong, but as long as law stands behind them they can be as self-righteous as they want.